On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I agree with you (I think). I like the MZ-S precisely becuase it's well
You probably do. Everyone should! ;) > made but lighter and cheaper than the f100 or EOS3, and I don't care > about the fatures they left out. What I always thought was odd was that > the MZ-S does have this "retro"layout and ergonomics that is fairly > obvious to anyone who actually uses it for a while. I've alway felt I have never seen or used an MZ-S, as my local stores don't carry it (which hearkens back to another arugment I think I laid out). If, as you and others have said in the past, the MZ-S has that layout, same as the -5n, then its the way Pentax should definatly continue. I can only speak to the -5n as its the one I own and am used to. Well, that, the ZX-50 and the ZX-L/6. > this was a perfectly natural extenion of Pentax's older camera feel to a > robocam. The PZ-1p was a complete break that followed the N/C camp and > was trying to comete with them at their own game. Oddly enough, the > fact that it was much cheaper seemed to have little effect. Exactly. At the time, a similarly featured camera with K mount (you know, for all these people begging for a flagship camera), and even cheaper than the competition to entice the masses... And it never took off. Why bother continuing that heritage. Or, the ZX-5, a camera that came out and was a hit based on its design. Which was refined to the -5n. Which was refined to the -S. Embrace your niche. To harken back to Leica, I'm sure that when every other SLR company has failed except whomever takes the top of the heap (Canon, in my opinion), Leica will still be there manufacturing the M series, and still be very well regarded despite a total lack of automation and cutting edge feature lists. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio.
